This Week in IP

Image credits: via Pixabay

Drafting credit: Divya Telang, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 22 June 2026 – 28 June 2026

Delhi High Court Protects ‘Godfather’ Mark in Premium Spirits Dispute

The Delhi High Court temporarily barred Cartel Bros. Pvt. Ltd. from utilizing the brand names “GODFATHER” or “GODFATHER’S” for its newly proposed whisky line endorsed by actor Sanjay Dutt.1 Devans Modern Breweries, the long-standing proprietor of Godfather beer since 1984, challenged a social media launch detailing the defendant’s new product alignment. Despite the defendant’s attempts to avert an injunction by modifying their branding to a composite label- “THE GLENWALK GODFATHER’S BY SANJAY DUTT”- and arguing that the celebrity’s endorsement served as the primary source identifier rather than the disputed word, the court was unpersuaded. The court firmly rejected the defence’s arguments regarding the non-use of the trademark for whisky over several years, clarifying that a registered proprietor does not lose enforcement rights through mere non-use without formal rectification. Furthermore, under an analysis of market channels, the bench determined that beer and whisky constitute ‘allied and cognate products’ governed by the same regulatory framework, making trademark dilution and consumer confusion highly probable among buyers with imperfect recollection. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate removal of all corresponding digital marketing and restrained any further manufacturing or distribution under the contested marks.2 Read more here.

Delhi High Court Clarifies Autonomy of Patents Act Over Biodiversity Clearances

The Delhi High Court clarified that securing an approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (“NBA”) does not mean an invention automatically qualifies for a patent.3 Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed an appeal by Shaafi Naturcure LLP after the Patent Office rejected their application for a six-herb asthma treatment on the grounds that it lacked an inventive step and relied on traditional knowledge. The company argued that its agreement with the NBA cleared it of patent objections, but the court ruled that biodiversity laws and patent laws operate in completely separate areas, the NBA simply regulates access to biological resources, while the Patent Office holds the exclusive power to decide patentability. Furthermore, the court noted that the company failed to mention the specific types of asthma it claimed to treat in its initial application, and it could not use later filings to introduce new medical effects that were missing from the original description. Ultimately, because one of the company’s own examples showed that a mix of just four herbs worked effectively, the court found the claim for a unique six-herb formula inconsistent and upheld the refusal to grant the patent.4 Read more there.

Delhi High Court Orders Takedown of Counterfeit “Jockey” Listings on Meesho

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining multiple e-commerce sellers from manufacturing, marketing, or listing apparel that carries brand names deceptively similar to the registered global trademark “JOCKEY”, such as “JOYKE”, “JOYEBEE”, “JOYESS”, and “JOJOKE”.5 Jockey International Inc. approached the court after discovering the copycat innerwear listings on Meesho and noting that the operations continued even after the company issued cease-and-desist notices to the vendors. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that because the original brand and the counterfeit merchandise target an identical consumer segment through common trade channels, a high likelihood of public confusion remains inevitable. Consequently, the court issued a strict mandate directing Meesho to block and suspend all infringing product URLs within 36 hours. To ensure the primary infringers can be effectively pursued, the platform was also ordered to uncover the rogue sellers by turning over their complete KYC data, registered addresses, mobile numbers, UPI details, transaction records, and IP logs within four weeks.6 Read more here.

Gujarat High Court Clarifies Commercial Court’s Jurisdiction in Design Cancellation Disputes

The Gujarat High Court held that a commercial court loses its jurisdiction to decide on interim injunction applications the moment a defendant requests the cancellation of a registered design.7 A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray overturned a previous order from the Surat Commercial Court in a dispute between Satyam Fashion and Meesho Technologies Private Limited. The High Court emphasized that under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000, transferring the lawsuit to the High Court is a mandatory, ministerial act once a plea for design revocation or cancellation is raised as a defence. Because the lower court has no legal authority to rule on temporary reliefs after such a defence is entered, the Bench set aside the commercial court’s injunction order and directed an immediate transfer of the entire case file to the High Court.8 Read more here.

Calcutta High Court Rejects Patent Over Vague Specifications and Missing Biological Origins

The Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal by German research organization Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, upholding the Patent Controller’s rejection of its patent application for a bioreactor biomass growth method.9 Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur ruled that the invention’s specifications were excessively broad and lacked the clarity required for patent protection, relying on open-ended operational ranges from “minutes to months” and vague phrasing that would force the public into extensive experimentation. Furthermore, the court held that Fraunhofer’s failure to disclose the source and geographical origin of its biological material which the company defined as micro-organisms and cells cultivated in the bioreactor was a critical, disqualifying lapse. Emphasizing that disclosing the biological origin is completely mandatory to protect India’s genetic resources and curb biopiracy, the bench rejected the organization’s procedural objections and concluded that a patent cannot reward an applicant when a key element of the invention is left missing.10 Read more here.

Indigenous Agricultural Crops from Madhya Pradesh Awarded Protection

Four traditional, native crops grown by tribal communities in Madhya Pradesh have been officially granted Geographical Indication tags to validate and protect their distinct regional qualities. The certified varieties include Sitahi Kutki and Nagdaman Kutki millets, the sweet-flavoured Baigani Arhar pigeon pea, all carefully preserved for generations by the Baiga and Gond tribes of Dindori, along with Mahakoshal Chhatriya Chawal, a hardy rice cultivated in the wetlands of Jabalpur and Katni. The technical evaluation and application filings were managed by the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya alongside the Agricultural Mandi Board. This legal recognition is expected to boost global demand, establish profitable new market ties, and directly improve the financial livelihoods of local tribal farmers.11

Delhi High Court Blocks Deceptive Rice Packaging in “Lakshmi Srinivasa” Dispute

In an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order, the Delhi High Court restrained Sree Tirumalaa Traders from selling rice under the “LAKSHMI SRINIVASA” mark and its corresponding red packaging.12 Justice Tejas Karia found that the plaintiffs, Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods and SLS Agro Ventures, who have used the brand and its protected deity-themed trade dress since 2003 successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The bench observed that the defendant’s visual layout was a copy intentionally designed to ride on the plaintiffs’ multi-crore goodwill and cause market confusion. Noting that the conflict satisfied the triple identity test of deceptively similar marks, identical food products, and identical consumer bases, the court barred the defendant’s trade dress during the lawsuit’s pendency.13 Read more here.

Bombay High Court Overturns Patent Revocation Due to Flawed Legal Reasoning

The Bombay High Court set aside an order by the Patent Controller that had revoked a patent granted to SAATHI Inc. for an absorbent article made from natural fibres.14 Justice Arif S. Doctor ruled that the revocation order lacked independent reasoning and failed to explain why the Controller completely departed from the Opposition Board’s explicit recommendation to reject the opposition. The court emphasized that while the Controller is not bound by the Board’s advice, simply ignoring its findings without an explanation shows a complete non-application of mind. Additionally, the Bench noted significant procedural errors: the opponent failed to submit a formal affidavit of evidence, merely attaching unverified documents instead, and the Controller failed to first decide whether the opponent even qualified as a “person interested” legally entitled to challenge the patent at all.15 Read more here.

International Update

USPTO Director Denies Apple’s Petitions Over Inconsistent Litigation Tactics

The USPTO Director John Squires denied a set of inter partes review petitions filed by Apple against memory chip patents owned by Taiwanese developer Etron Technology’s subsidiary – WeCrevention. The decision penalizes Apple for taking contradictory legal positions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) compared to its active infringement litigation in the Western District of Texas. Apple argued that the patent terms should carry their plain and ordinary meanings and did not concede that the preamble language was a limiting factor. However, in district court, Apple argued that the exact same preamble was legally limiting because it contained the core of the actual invention. Furthermore, Apple attempted to leverage conflicting arguments regarding a “means-plus-function” structural limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Invoking the Revvo precedent against strategic gamesmanship, Director Squires emphasized that petitioners must present a single, uniform claim construction across all parallel venues. Citing broader concerns over market-dominant tech companies using the PTAB as an unfair tool to escape adverse litigation, the Director exercised discretionary denial to prevent dual-track tactical behaviour.16 Read more here.

General Court Invalidates Tetra Pak’s Iconic 3D Carton Shape Over Technical Functionality

The European Union’s General Court ruled against Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance SA, declaring its famous octagonal 3D carton shape invalid as a trademark. Reversing a previous decision by the Board of Appeal (“BoA”), the court found that all four essential visual characteristics of the contested brick packaging performed purely technical functions, which disqualifies the shape from trademark protection under Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the EUTMR. The court emphasized that the provision is designed to prevent companies from utilizing trademark law to secure permanent monopolies over functional designs or technical solutions that should instead be restricted to time-limited patents. The court rejected the BoA’s narrower logic, which had argued that benefits like reducing manufacturing material, improving handling, and cutting transportation weight were merely manufacturing or commercial advantages rather than technical results. Instead, the General Court confirmed that optimizing a container’s capacity and reducing its weight directly relates to how the product functions, serving the practical storage and transport needs of food industry intermediaries. The court factored in end-users, relying on Tetra Pak’s website and patent applications advertising the curved carton’s comfortable grip. It clarified that a shape needs no innovative improvement to be barred from trademark protection. If its essential features achieve a technical result, it cannot be monopolized, regardless of aesthetic value.17 Read more here.

USPTO’s Approach on Double Patenting explained

The USPTO in ex parte Corteva Agriscience LLC has clarified that inventors can protect large ‘families’ of related patent applications without losing their rights. Under a rule called “obviousness-type double patenting”, inventors are not allowed to unfairly extend their monopoly on an invention by getting multiple patents for minor variations of the exact same idea. In this case, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board clarified how this rule works when different patents in the same family have different expiration dates due to government-approved time extensions, called Patent Term Adjustments. The court ruled that as long as a newer “child” patent does not expire past the maximum timeline set by the family’s original “parent” patent, it is completely valid and protected, which provides inventors much more predictable and friendly boundaries when they are filing a series of connected patent applications.18

US Department of Justice Seizes Hundreds of Illegal FIFA World Cup Streaming Sites

The United States Department of Justice announced the successful seizure of nearly 400 domains that were caught broadcasting unauthorized, real-time streams of the FIFA World Cup 2026 matches. Dubbed “Operation Offsides”, this massive enforcement initiative was led by the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations to dismantle global digital piracy networks profiting from the tournament. An affidavit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia detailed how federal agents verified the unauthorized broadcasts, acting on collaborative data provided by FIFA and major media entities like NBC Universal and Warner Brothers. Beyond violating international copyright laws, officials warned that these rogue sites serve as a front for criminal organizations, exposing viewers to severe security threats including malware and compromised financial data. To completely disrupt the backend infrastructure, US authorities worked via the International Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property network to extend the crackdown globally, successfully targeting connected servers and domains operating out of piracy hubs like Bulgaria and Peru.19

Munich Court Holds Google Liable for Defamatory AI Overview Summaries

The District Court of Munich I granted a preliminary injunction holding Google liable for corporate personality rights infringements caused by defamatory statements generated in its AI Overview search results. The case arose when searches combining the names of a publishing house and its subsidiary with the word “scam” produced AI summaries falsely accusing them of fraudulent business practices, subscription traps, and connections to unrelated third parties. While Google altered the text after receiving a complaint, its refusal to provide a formal cease-and-desist declaration led the court to assert its international and local jurisdiction under German law, affirming that the Digital Services Act (DSA) does not displace national civil-law injunctive claims. On the merits, the court ruled that Google cannot treat the AI summary as a mere list of search links. Instead, because the tool evaluates and combines third-party data to formulate independent, untransparent answers unsupported by the referenced links, Google must accept responsibility for the output as its own content. Furthermore, the judges rejected standard search engine liability limitations and DSA safe harbour protections, concluding that AI summaries are not indispensable for internet use and that it is entirely reasonable to require Google to automatically verify its AI text against source links prior to delivery, especially since users cannot be expected to cross-check every source and have no recourse against third parties for AI-generated text.20 Read more here.

  1. Devans Modern Breweries Limited v. Cartel Bros Private Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 346/2026, I.A. 9898/2026, I.A. 9911/2026 & I.A. 10797/2026. ↩︎
  2. Prashant Jha, Delhi High Court restrains Sanjay Dutt-backed company from using ‘Godfather’ mark to sell whisky, Bar and Bench (June 22, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-restrains-sanjay-dutt-backed-company-from-using-godfather-mark-to-sell-whisky. ↩︎
  3. Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 109/2022. ↩︎
  4. Riya Rathore, National Biodiversity Authority Approval Has No Bearing On Patentability: Delhi High Court, Live Law Biz (June 22, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/patent/national-biodiversity-authority-approval-has-no-bearing-on-patentability-delhi-high-court-538617. ↩︎
  5. Jockey International Inc. v. M/S D.R. Kuppraj Tex India & Ors., CS(COMM) 614/2026. ↩︎
  6. Anjaly Raj, Delhi HC orders Meesho to take down products violating Jockey trademark, Business Standard (June 26, 2026), https://www.business-standard.com/companies/news/delhi-high-court-meesho-jockey-trademark-listings-126062600276_1.html. ↩︎
  7. M/s Satyam Fashion v. Meesho Technologies Private Limited & Ors., R/APPEAL from ORDER No. 224/2025, CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) No. 1/2025 in R/APPEAL from ORDER No. 224/2025. ↩︎
  8. Riya Rathore, Commercial Court Cannot Decide Interim Relief Once Design Cancellation Is Pleaded: Gujarat High Court, Live Law Biz (June 24, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/design/transfer-of-design-suit-to-high-court-required-when-cancellation-is-pleaded-as-defence-gujarat-high-court-538812. ↩︎
  9. Fraunhofer Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschunge v. The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trade Mark & Anr., IPDPTA/11/2024. ↩︎
  10. Riya Rathore, Calcutta High Court Upholds Rejection of German Research Organisation’s Patent For Biomass Growth Method, Live Law Biz (June 27, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/patent/calcutta-high-court-upholds-rejection-of-german-research-organisations-patent-for-biomass-growth-method-539109. ↩︎
  11. Sagar Choukse, Four Tribal Crops of Madhya Pradesh receive GI Tag, Times of India (June 28, 2026), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/indore/four-tribal-crops-of-madhya-pradesh-receive-gi-tag/articleshow/132041888.cms. ↩︎
  12. M/S Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods & Anr. v. Sree Tirumalaa Traders, CS(COMM) 667/2026. ↩︎
  13. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Bars Sree Tirumalaa Traders From Using “Lakshmi Srinivasa” Mark & Trade Dress, Live Law Biz (June 26, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-grants-interim-injunction-against-sree-tirumalaa-traders-for-copying-lakshmi-srinivasa-rice-brand-trademark-trade-dress-539043. ↩︎
  14. Saathi, Inc. v. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks & Anr., Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 17/2026. ↩︎
  15. Riya Rathore, Bombay High Court Sets Aside Revocation Of SAATHI’s Patent For Natural Fibre Absorbent Article, Live Law Biz (June 27, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/patent/bombay-high-court-sets-aside-patent-revocation-order-against-saathi-slams-controller-for-ignoring-objections-539115. ↩︎
  16. Steve Brachmann, Squires Denies Apple IPR Under Revvo for Inconsistent Position on Limiting Preambles, IP Watchdog (June 28, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/28/squires-denies-apple-ipr-revvo/. ↩︎
  17. Marcel Pemsel, Unboxing Tetra Pak: General Court declares iconic carton shape invalid,IPKat (June 24, 2026), https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2026/06/unboxing-tetra-pak-general-court.html. ↩︎
  18. Kevin Greenleaf & Aditya Mishra, USPTO Clarifies Approach to Double Patenting and Patent Term Adjustment in Continuation Families, IP Watchdog (June 25, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/uspto-clarifies-approach-to-double-patenting-and-patent-term-adjustment-in-continuation-families/. ↩︎
  19. TOI Tech Desk, US government seizes hundreds of websites streaming FIFA World Cup matches; warn viewers, Times of India (June 28, 2026), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/us-government-seizes-hundreds-of-websites-for-illegally-streaming-fifa-world-cup-matches-warn-viewers-if-you-/amp_articleshow/132047361.cms. ↩︎
  20. Marcel Pemsel, AI-generated search summaries and personality rights: Munich court grants preliminary injunction against Google, IP Kat (June 28, 2026), https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2026/06/ai-generated-search-summaries-and.html. ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles